I have ordered a ZI 25/2.8 Biogon

[Ed Schwartzreic]

After months of waiting for the new Zeiss-Ikon 21/2.8 Biogon to materialize (it is now rumored to be on tap for September, delayed due to flare issues), I have decided to spring for the 25/2.8.

My thinking runs this way: for many reasons I use a 35mm lens on my film rangefinders as my default lens. I like the way the 35's draw, their speed, physical size, and FOV. On the R-D1, I still like the way 35's look, despite the reduced FOV, and the old Leitz 35/1.4 is the lens I tend to leave on the camera.

Nonetheless, I really feel the need for a lens for the R-D1 equal to a 35's FOV on a film camera. All the Leica-compatible wides I own will not work on the R-D1, save for the CV 12mm. This is why I was waiting for the ZI 21, which I felt would have a FOV between 28 and 35. With the ongoing delay, plus the glowing review by Erwin of the 25/2.8, I emailed Joseph Yao to find out his price and availability for the 25. I asked him besides about the actual, as opposed to nominal FOV. He replied that he used a 25 Biogon on his R-D1 and that it's FOV perfectly matched the 35mm lines in his CV 28/35 Minifinder. I was sold on the spot.

I will post again when I have the lens and can show some pics.

Ed

 

[Justin Viiret]

Look forward to seeing some pics -- I'd love to see what the results on the film rangefinders look like as well. 🙂 I've been thinking about the 21/2.8 as well... what was the price difference between the two?

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

About $120 US price difference. Of course the hood is $85 extra in either case, and a 24/25 VF will be about $125 if VC and much more if Zeiss or Leica.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

It will be interesting to hear a hands-on impression of this lens. As you know, I have been enjoying the ZI 50/2 and like it very much. Palms are still itching for a 50/1.4 Asph, though. Yikes.

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

My lens arrived late yesterday from Hong Kong. It looks and feels very much like Ben Mark's 50/2 when I had on my R-D1 for a short time a few days ago. It is one of those contrasty sunny-f/16 days here in Vermont today, but here are a few shots. All are full frame. I am impressed at how sharp it is, especially in the center. I was able to get sun reflections into the lens (pic of cemetary), but there was not otherwise any veiling flare. The lens handled nicely, appeared to be very well built (felt almost at a Leica level), and indeed just fit the 35tmm frame lines on the CV 28/35 MiniFinder.

About the shots (all are the higher level jpeg):

Cemetary shows the sun's reflections, as above. ISO 200, f/8

Dom as Le Penseur. ISO 200, f/2.8, 1/30

Julie and Samantha, ISO 400, f/2.8, 1/15th

On the Path, ISO 200, estimated closest focus at f/8. The 25/2.8 focuses closer than the R-D1's RF can show.

Peter and Daughter: shot from hip, backlighted situation corrected in PSCS. Not e the center sharpness!

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

A couple more shots. By the River ISO 200, f/8. Maia ISO ?800, f/2.8

Ed

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

Here are details from some of the images.

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

Julie and Smanatha was ISO 1600, not 400.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Ed: Looks like a winner. I'm intrigued that there seems to be minimal light fall-off at the corners. Did you correct for the focal length in post processing? I have used Cosina's 25/4 Snap-Shot Skopar with pleasure on the RD-1, but I like the look of this lens. Inquiring minds, and all that.

Ben

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

Hi Ben.

Forgot to mention this. Here is a shot including the sky which shows at vignetting (but here at f/8). I have not found it objectionable.

 

[DerrickC]

The 25mm focuses down to 0.5m right? Since the rangefinder focuses down to around 0.7m only, do you have to make sure that you don't go too close? Is it a bother? Thanks.

Derrick

 

[Doug]

This discrepancy is unfortunate... perhaps the lens should be designed to have an adjustable stop so that it can be set not to focus closer than the coupling limit of the body.

The discrepancy would be a problem when I want to get as close as the lens will allow, so I crank the lens on around to its close-limit stop, then move the camera back and forth til the RF indicates correct focus. In this instance, the subject would be .7m away and the RF would indicate focus is correct, but the lens would be set to a blurry .5m!

 

[Huck Finn]

Wouldn't using it at less than 0.7 be the same as using the CV 25/4? I would also think that the hyperfocal distance would cover a lot of sins at this focal length.

Huck

 

[Doug]

You may notice in my scenario, I'm blithely carrying on without thinking about a lapse in RF coupling at the shortest distance... 🙂 This is a complication to casual camera use, and once alert to this possible pitfall, it can be dealt with as you suggest. I just recently had to be reminded of this, as my new 28 'cron focuses to .7m while the CLE decouples at .8m. A milder case to be sure, but it's a strange feeling to see the RF patch stop moving while the focus tab continues... Surely, any focusing method that avoids or de-emphasizes using the RF patch makes the "problem" disappear.